(gulp!)

Remember Romer v. Evans, the landmark 1996 decision in which the US Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the Colorado state constitution, barring gay-rights laws?

Guess who was working behind the scenes, as a pro-bono advisor to the homosexual activists who won that case?

Now keep in mind, a professional lawyer always represents his clients zealously, even if he disagrees with them. But on the other hand, he doesn't have to take the case. When John Roberts was asked, a former partner recalls,

He didn't hesitate. He said, "Let's do it." And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Question is whether a Catholic should in ALL cases be forced BY LAW to employ or house people openly involved in homosexual behavior. CO's Amendment 2 -- consistent with CDF's 1992 warning against such legislation -- prohibited state or local laws establishing special "protected class" status that would compel Catholic landlords or employers to violate their conscience. Roberts helped overturn that protective prohibition. Would some similarly defend his coaching attorneys arguing to uphold Roe?

Posted by: -
Aug. 05, 2005 11:35 AM ET USA

Please give Judge Roberts a break. This news is good for his confirmation. One cannot expect a "perfect" candidate.

Posted by: -
Aug. 05, 2005 10:48 AM ET USA

I haven't had time to go back and read all about Romer v. Evans, but it seems that the Court ruled too broadly. As Scalia wrote in his dissent: "The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite." In barring unjust discrimination (spite) against homosexual people, it also barred just discrimination. I don't think the Court had to rule so broadly, and no one expected it to, so perhaps Roberts shouldn't be blamed that it did? I'm still uncomfortable, but I thought I'd throw this thought out.

Posted by: -
Aug. 05, 2005 9:56 AM ET USA

As posted by me elsewhere, the CDF document does not apply to this case. Roberts did no work for homosexual *couples* seeking housing, marriage or adoption rights. It is against Catholic teaching to unjustly discriminate against gays. Can a *single*, gay person be denied housing? They have the same chance at chastity we all do. Given this, Roberts' work here does not conflict with Catholic teaching - if all he did was argue the case as the article describes it. No conflict with the 1992 doc.

Posted by: -
Aug. 04, 2005 10:39 PM ET USA

Ratzinger 1992: "Legislation has been proposed which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family."

Posted by: -
Aug. 04, 2005 10:35 PM ET USA

Roberts’ enthusiastic involvement in the Roemer case is troubling, when he clearly as a matter of conscience could have said no, but even more disturbing are posts which claim that adding “sexual orientation” to nondiscrimination laws is consistent with Catholic teaching. Authored by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith authored a letter to bishops in 1992 which clearly stated that it IS in opposition to Catholic teaching. See next post for quote.

Posted by: Fr. William -
Aug. 04, 2005 9:58 PM ET USA

OK, he did volunteer for the work, which he did not have to do. & there is certainly cause for concern on that matter. & Louise is right that homosexuals cannot be denied employment and housing. & the NYTimes is wrong & should be reprimanded for investigating Roberts' children's adoption records.
I agree with Diogenes & Ann Coulter: we should be concerned.
& we would do well to continue to pray for Roberts. & if he's seated on the Supreme Court, that he be a strong & courageous Catholic.

Posted by: -
Aug. 04, 2005 6:53 PM ET USA

No judge nominee will be far enough to the right or the left for anyone. But if you are the middle of the road, that raises the thought also: "If you are neither hot nor cold I will vomit you out."

Posted by: -
Aug. 04, 2005 3:57 PM ET USA

Relax. All you need to know on this, via Confirm Them:
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=986

Posted by: Vincit omnia amor -
Aug. 04, 2005 3:43 PM ET USA

let's pray he's no Souter!

Posted by: -
Aug. 04, 2005 3:03 PM ET USA

I'm not sure what to make of this either. Perhaps the nomination of Judge Roberts will be looked upon as analogous to Pope Benedict XVI's appointment of Archbishop Levada as head of the CDF. In both cases it is too early to tell if disaster looms ... but I'm not altogether sanguine about either of them!

Posted by: -
Aug. 04, 2005 12:49 PM ET USA

Not sure what to make of this report yet. It's clear that the article is an attempt to erode conservative support for Roberts. Let's find out more facts on this before we allow their strategy to succeed.

Posted by: -
Aug. 04, 2005 12:48 PM ET USA

Chill, guys. From what I read in that story at least this brief was in conformance with Catholic teaching as seen in the CCC. Homosexual persons are not to be unjustly discriminated against, which might include employment and housing. There's nothing (at least in the story) about gay marriage or anything Catholic teaching opposes.
Homosexuality is an evil tendency, but it is also part of the faith that there is such a thing as *unjust* discrimination on this basis. (As well as just.)

Posted by: -
Aug. 04, 2005 11:16 AM ET USA

This is inarguably NOT a good thing. For Roberts to have voluntarily worked this case and for free is abominable. And he's Catholic?
I was initially thrilled with Judge Roberts and his pro-life creds. until I learned that Ann Coulter was very suspicious about him.
Seems like she may be right and if so Pres. Bush picked the wrong person for this seat. Pres Bush should put her on the bench instead. Actually, the Constitution does allow it.

Stay in Touch!

Subscribe to Insights

Stay on top of the latest Catholic news and analysis from CatholicCulture.org.